In Session » david fowlerhttp://blogs.tennessean.com/politics
Tennessee PoliticsMon, 07 Apr 2014 14:51:50 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6FACT, Tennessee Equality Project spar over anti-bullying billhttp://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2011/fact-tennessee-equality-project-spar-over-anti-bullying-bill/
http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2011/fact-tennessee-equality-project-spar-over-anti-bullying-bill/#commentsFri, 30 Dec 2011 20:55:50 +0000Chas Siskhttp://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/?p=15622Last session it was the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Now the battle lines are being drawn up over another bill that deals with discussion about homosexuality in schools.

The Family Action Council of Tennessee said in a newsletter emailed to supporters this week that one of its top priorities for 2012 will be passage of legislation that changes the state’s anti-bullying law “to make sure it protects the religious liberty and free speech rights of students who want to express their views on homosexuality.” The Tennessee Equality Project, a gay rights organization, has already sounded off on the measure, calling it “a ‘license to bully’ that allows them to hide their irrational biases behind an extreme religious belief.”

It’s not clear yet whether the bill, SB 760/HB 1153, is going anywhere. Last year, it went no further than being assigned to subcommittees in each chamber, and one of its sponsor, state Sen. Jim Tracy, R-Shelbyville, said Friday that he hasn’t given the measure any thought since the legislature adjourned in May.

“We’ll look at it when we get there in January,” he said.

But the language of the bill suggests plenty of room for fireworks. The measure would explicitly protect the expression of religious, philosophical or political viewpoints, even if they are unpopular with students, teachers and school officials.

“Oftentimes, people that express that viewpoint become quote ‘bullied’ by administrators that do not share their views,” said David Fowler, FACT’s president.

The measure also says that anti-bullying curriculums and materials should not endorse a viewpoint and that they should focus on the actions of the perpetrator, not the characteristics of the victim.

This raises some practical questions. Would schools be allowed to punish students who use slurs but don’t actually threaten harm? What about statements in which the slur was included in a religious statement, as in “God hates …”? (Members of a Kansas church frequently use this very phrasing in protest signs. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld their right to protest near the funerals of service members.)

Fowler’s response: Slurs would probably still be considered threatening in most cases, but some statements – particularly those that are religious in nature – would be protected.

“I think you have to look at the particular circumstances, and it could be yes in some cases,” he said. “In other circumstances, the answer could be no. … That’s where in the law we’re trying to strike the proper balance between words that are truly threatening versus constitutionally protected words that people find offensive and insulting.”

Writing on a TEP website, board president Jonathan Cole said supporters of such legislation are “using children as pawns for social, religious and political agendas.”

“We need to be focusing on ways to ensure that Tennessee students receive an education free from bullying, harassment and intimidation,” he wrote. “The health and welfare of Tennessee children may depend on it.”